Some say that Charles Stanley believes repentance is a change of mind and not a change of lifestyle. However listening to him on podcast recently this is not what he believes and has stated clearly that those whom say a prayer but live in sin are not true Christians. He said the prayer does not save anyone as only the blood does that. I have heard Stanley in other podcasts state clearly that true believers have fruit. He also has stated that Biblical evangelism is telling people God loves them, but ALSO God judges sin, and sinners will spend eternity in Hell. He is not in favor of those that preach only condemnation, nor is he in favor of those that preach only "God loves you" such as Joel Osteen and others.
I am confused on where the confusion is with him, and why many in the Paul Washer, MacArthur, and Reformed camps claim he teaches "easy-believism." He does not according to the podcasts I have heard. Perhaps he has in some books, but he is human.
Two cents:
My dad went through a pretty bad experience with a "Baptist" church that was actually charismatic, and for this reason did not go to church for years. However, in that time and even now he listened to Charles Stanley. Stanley has, I believe, an audience that is unique, and he "puts the cookie jar down where the kiddies can get to it," if I may say (lol).
If you ever get the chance to listen to older Charles Stanley sermons, I highly recommend them.
Not all believers are going to be blessed by the same preachers, and among the preachers I think we could categorize different levels of audiences. Those less in-depth in their study and knowledge may prefer Stanley (and this is not a slam on Stanley, I have respect for the man and his ministry), whereas MacArthur or Sproul may appeal to those further along.
The only thing questionable I have ever heard about Stanley is the suggestion he adheres to a Millennial Exclusion theology, which personally I doubt very much.
Here is the other cent: we should be careful about what we say about anyone, really, as it may be that in someone's life certain preachers may be acceptable, such as Stanley was for my dad, despite being bitter about his experience with this particular church...and that may be the only source that person receives the word of God. It may be that by seeking to discredit one teacher over another, you may burn the last bridge that individual has that spans the great gulf between them and God. If we are going to ridicule or pick apart someone's teaching, keep in mind that not everyone is going to benefit from a theological breakdown of doctrine, and that the level they are on has only in view the basics, which I think it is safe to say Stanley is quite capable of getting across. Usually when people try to elevate one teacher above another, one person above another, the result is that the person they seek to impress despises both. This is true in personal relationships as well as regarding teachers.
For years I wanted to tell my dad, "Dad, there are better preachers to listen to." What I believe now is that I was wrong, for the time then, Charles Stanley was the best one he could listen to, because...
he would listen.
We all have our favorite teachers, and of course, since God is leading every one of us, our teachers are the right ones to listen to, right? If we remember that we are all at different stages in our growth and that while I am blessed by the teachers I have viewed to be sound, my brother or sister may not be. They may learn better from someone else.
The bottom line would be glorifying the Lord, rather than a/the teacher.
God bless.
